Community hub
Recent from talks
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
Persecution of Hindus
Hindus have experienced both historical and ongoing religious persecution and systematic violence, in the form of forced conversions, documented massacres, genocides, demolition and desecration of temples, as well as the destruction of educational centres.
Parts of India were subject to Muslim rule from the period of Muhammad ibn Qasim till the fall of the Mughal Empire. There is a tendency among some historians to view the Muslim conquests and Muslim empires as a prolonged period of violence against Hindu culture, with Will Durant calling the Muslim conquest of India "probably the bloodiest story in history."
David Lorenzen asserts that during the period of Islamic rule, there was state-sponsored persecution against Hindus, but that it was sporadic and directed mostly at temple buildings, not people. However, he also points to the mentions of socio-religious conflict by poets like Kabir. The extent of persecution of Hindus under Muslim rule is subject to scholarly debate, and there have been criticisms that the historiography of India is being distorted by communal politics.
According to André Wink, the mutilation and destruction of Hindu religious murtis and temples were an attack on Hindu religious practice, and the Muslim destruction of religious architecture was a means to eradicate the vestiges of Hindu religious symbols. Muslim texts of this period justify it based on their contempt and abhorrence for what they perceived as idols and idolators in Islamic thought. Peter Jackson notes that the Muslim historians of the medieval era viewed the creation and expansion of Islamic sultanates in Hindustan as "holy war" and a religious conquest, characterizing Muslim forces as "the army of Islam" and the Hindus as infidels. According to Jackson, these records need to be interpreted and relied upon with care given their tendencies to exaggerate. This was not a period of "uncompromising iconoclasm", states Jackson. Cities that quickly surrendered to the Islamic army, says Jackson, "got a better deal" for their religious monuments.
According to Richard Davis, targeting sacred temples was not unique to Muslim rulers in India. Some Hindu kings too, prior to the formation of first Islamic sultanates in India, expropriated sacred mūrtis from temples and took it back to their capitals as a political symbol of victory. However, the temples and looted icons carried away were still considered sacred and treated accordingly with respect by the victorious Hindu king and his forces, states Richard Davis. There is hardly any evidence of "mutilation of divine images and intentional defilement" of Hindu sacred icons or temples by armies controlled by Hindu rulers. The evidence that is available suggests that the victorious Hindu kings undertook significant effort to house the expropriated mūrtis in new, grand temples within their kingdom. According to Wink, Hindu destruction of Buddhist and Jain places of worship took place before the 10th century, but the evidence for such 'Hindu iconoclasm' is incidental, too vague, and unconvincing. According to Wink, mutilation and defilement of sacred icons is rarely evidenced in Hindu texts, in contrast to Muslim texts on the Islamic iconoclasm in India. Hindu temples were centres of political resistance which had to be suppressed.
Bukka Raya I, one of the founders of Vijaynagar Empire, had taken steps to rehabilitate Hindu religious and cultural institutions which suffered a serious setback under Muslim rule. Buddhists centres of learning decayed, leading to the rise to prominence of Brahmanical institutions.[citation needed]
A lot of Vedantic literature got translated into these[which?] languages between the 12th and 15th centuries.
Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent began in the early 8th century CE with the army led by Muhammad ibn Qasim. This campaign is narrated in the Chach Nama by Bakr Kūfī, a 13th-century manuscript which claimed to be based on an earlier Arabic record.
Hub AI
Persecution of Hindus AI simulator
(@Persecution of Hindus_simulator)
Persecution of Hindus
Hindus have experienced both historical and ongoing religious persecution and systematic violence, in the form of forced conversions, documented massacres, genocides, demolition and desecration of temples, as well as the destruction of educational centres.
Parts of India were subject to Muslim rule from the period of Muhammad ibn Qasim till the fall of the Mughal Empire. There is a tendency among some historians to view the Muslim conquests and Muslim empires as a prolonged period of violence against Hindu culture, with Will Durant calling the Muslim conquest of India "probably the bloodiest story in history."
David Lorenzen asserts that during the period of Islamic rule, there was state-sponsored persecution against Hindus, but that it was sporadic and directed mostly at temple buildings, not people. However, he also points to the mentions of socio-religious conflict by poets like Kabir. The extent of persecution of Hindus under Muslim rule is subject to scholarly debate, and there have been criticisms that the historiography of India is being distorted by communal politics.
According to André Wink, the mutilation and destruction of Hindu religious murtis and temples were an attack on Hindu religious practice, and the Muslim destruction of religious architecture was a means to eradicate the vestiges of Hindu religious symbols. Muslim texts of this period justify it based on their contempt and abhorrence for what they perceived as idols and idolators in Islamic thought. Peter Jackson notes that the Muslim historians of the medieval era viewed the creation and expansion of Islamic sultanates in Hindustan as "holy war" and a religious conquest, characterizing Muslim forces as "the army of Islam" and the Hindus as infidels. According to Jackson, these records need to be interpreted and relied upon with care given their tendencies to exaggerate. This was not a period of "uncompromising iconoclasm", states Jackson. Cities that quickly surrendered to the Islamic army, says Jackson, "got a better deal" for their religious monuments.
According to Richard Davis, targeting sacred temples was not unique to Muslim rulers in India. Some Hindu kings too, prior to the formation of first Islamic sultanates in India, expropriated sacred mūrtis from temples and took it back to their capitals as a political symbol of victory. However, the temples and looted icons carried away were still considered sacred and treated accordingly with respect by the victorious Hindu king and his forces, states Richard Davis. There is hardly any evidence of "mutilation of divine images and intentional defilement" of Hindu sacred icons or temples by armies controlled by Hindu rulers. The evidence that is available suggests that the victorious Hindu kings undertook significant effort to house the expropriated mūrtis in new, grand temples within their kingdom. According to Wink, Hindu destruction of Buddhist and Jain places of worship took place before the 10th century, but the evidence for such 'Hindu iconoclasm' is incidental, too vague, and unconvincing. According to Wink, mutilation and defilement of sacred icons is rarely evidenced in Hindu texts, in contrast to Muslim texts on the Islamic iconoclasm in India. Hindu temples were centres of political resistance which had to be suppressed.
Bukka Raya I, one of the founders of Vijaynagar Empire, had taken steps to rehabilitate Hindu religious and cultural institutions which suffered a serious setback under Muslim rule. Buddhists centres of learning decayed, leading to the rise to prominence of Brahmanical institutions.[citation needed]
A lot of Vedantic literature got translated into these[which?] languages between the 12th and 15th centuries.
Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent began in the early 8th century CE with the army led by Muhammad ibn Qasim. This campaign is narrated in the Chach Nama by Bakr Kūfī, a 13th-century manuscript which claimed to be based on an earlier Arabic record.